Allahabad High Court
ROHIT AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses a prima facie commission of offence and no interference is warranted.
Summary
Petitioners Rohit and another filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR dated 11‑08‑2026 registered under sections 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita. The High Court examined the FIR and held that it disclosed a prima facie commission of offence, rendering the prayer to quash the FIR untenable in view of Supreme Court precedents (State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra). Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the FIR. However, because the alleged offences carry a maximum punishment of seven years, the Court directed the investigating authorities to strictly observe the arrest safeguards under CrPC sections 41(1)(b) and 41‑A, BNS sections 35(3)‑35(7), and the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and the Court’s own earlier order in Vimal Kumar et al. v. State of U.P. The petition was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 11‑08‑2026 can be quashed on the ground of lack of prima facie evidence of offence.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the FIR in view of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 351(3), 352, 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6), 35(7)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 41(1)(b), 41-A
Subjects
- quash FIR
- prima facie offence
- arrest safeguards
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
- CrPC
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21581 of 2026
Rohit And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Alok Kumar Srivastava, Shweta
Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 45
HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the First Information
Report dated 11.08.2026 registered as Case Crime No. 0243 of 2026,
under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS, Police Station- Rura, District-
Kanpur Dehat.
3. We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses commission of
offence and therefore, the prayer made to quash the FIR cannot be
entertained in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases
of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2
SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and
as such, we are of the view that no interference is warranted.
4. However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of in
the impugned FIR, are punishable with a term up to seven years,
therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioners in pursuance of
the impugned FIR, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall
ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and
Section 41-A of CrPC/Section 35(3) to 35(7) of Bhartiya Nagrika
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 as
well as the directions issued in judgement and order dated 28.01.2021 of
this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020
CRLP No. 21581 of 2026
2
(Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported
in 2021 (2) ACR 1147, be strictly complied with.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.)
September 23, 2026
Rama Kant
Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…